Allowance for Random Dose Estimation Errors in Atomic Bomb Survivor Studies: A Revision

Pierce, D. A., Væth, M. and Cologne, J. B. Allowance for Random Dose Estimation Errors in Atomic Bomb Survivor Studies: A Revision. Radiat. Res. 170, 118–126 (2008). Allowing for imprecision of radiation dose estimates for A-bomb survivors followed up by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation can...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiation research 2008-07, Vol.170 (1), p.118-126
Main Authors: Pierce, Donald A., Væth, Michael, Cologne, John B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analytical estimating
Atomic bombs
Bias
Dose response relationship
Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation
Dosimetry
Error rates
Estimation methods
Humans
Mortality
Neoplasms - mortality
Nuclear Weapons
Radiation dosage
Radiation dose response relationship
REGULAR ARTICLES
Research Design
Risk Assessment
Sensitivity and Specificity
Survivors - statistics & numerical data
Truncation
Uncertainty
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Pierce, D. A., Væth, M. and Cologne, J. B. Allowance for Random Dose Estimation Errors in Atomic Bomb Survivor Studies: A Revision. Radiat. Res. 170, 118–126 (2008). Allowing for imprecision of radiation dose estimates for A-bomb survivors followed up by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation can be improved through recent statistical methodology. Since the entire RERF dosimetry system has recently been revised, it is timely to reconsider this. We have found that the dosimetry revision itself does not warrant changes in these methods but that the new methodology does. In addition to assumptions regarding the form and magnitude of dose estimation errors, previous and current methods involve the apparent distribution of true doses in the cohort. New formulas give results conveniently and explicitly in terms of these inputs. Further, it is now possible to use assumptions about two components of the dose errors, referred to in the statistical literature as “classical” and “Berkson-type”. There are indirect statistical indications, involving non-cancer biological effects, that errors may be somewhat larger than assumed before, in line with recommendations made here. Inevitably, methods must rely on uncertain assumptions about the magnitude of dose errors, and it is comforting to find that, within the range of plausibility, eventual cancer risk estimates are not very sensitive to these.
ISSN:0033-7587
1938-5404
DOI:10.1667/RR1059.1